Exodus Of The Machine Teaser 1

[Winge]

Oh it absolutely deserves negative reviews, and I am the last person to go approving of Diablo 3. That being said, it doesn't deserve grades of flat-out 0. There are worse games in the world than something mediocre that had horrible DRM problems. I'd be the guy giving it a 4 or a 5 and saying "Well I mean, the game is okay when you CAN play it." Not exactly a ringing endorsement, but the 0 ratings are a bit out of line.

Personally I disagree, but that's just because I think you have to put the company's means and reputation into consideration when making a review.

If a small indie company like Arcen Games tried to make an RPG, which forced you to play online...well, let's be honest, nobody would even buy that game. That's the entire point, it's only Blizzard's reputation that lets them get away with that crap in the first place. So if they're going to use their reputation to make games that spit in the customer's face and that nobody would buy otherwise, they better be DAMN GOOD GAMES, and they better WORK PROPERLY RIGHT OUT OF THE BOX. Otherwise, you're liable to start a customer shitstorm of Hurricane Katrina proportions, and one that, I'm afraid to say, you rightly deserve.  Let's be completely honest, Blizzard is not hurting for the money.  There was no reason that intrusive DRM even needed to be there other than they're greedy bastages. They got exactly what they deserved. In fact, if anything I think they got off lightly. If those professional reviewers had even an ounce of integrity, they would have given the game a zero too.

Should I mention that the real-money auction house worked correctly right out of the box? Seems like they got the things that were important to them right.

^ This.  I wouldn't have given D3 a 0, but I would definitely rate well below the reviewer's score.  I got it right at the beginning because I really enjoyed the open beta (my 'demo', if you will).  However, it basically has no endgame.  Unlike D2, there was no long-term goal, no perfect build to reach (or, if there was, there wasn't anything special about the items for it...just +stats).  I stopped playing even before they patched in the 'paragon levels.'  I'm pretty sure my friends stopped playing it too.

IMO, a review needs to take into account the type of game (to try and rule out the "oh, I really hate RTS games" review), gameplay, replay value, the cost of the game to the user (a $10 game should be reviewed differently than a $60 game...use release prices, since that's when the most reviews come up).  As such, I would probably give D3 a 50--it's fun the first time through, but it lacks a lot compared to D2, I have little desire to replay it, and it was $60 at release.  By comparison, I would probably rate AVWW2 at least 85 (possibly higher, to account for the fact that metroidvania really isn't my style).  The basic gameplay is fun, there's a good variety of enemies to face (especially for a $15 game), and the strategy portion will keep me coming back for more.  And I would just about have to give AI War a 100...I've played it for over 400 hours, and I still come back for more FUN!

I think the problem, as Chris or Keith has alluded to in the past, is that reviewers spend very little time playing the games they review.  For the first 2 hours, D3 seems great, AVWW2 seems OK, and you're still trying to figure out the units do in AI War.  40 hours later, things start to shift.  AVWW2 starts showing it's replay value, D3 starts to feel grindy, and you're still trying to figure out how to keep the AI from ROFLstomping you in AI War (technically, that never changes; it just gets more fun as time goes on  ).  I think that's part of the necessary evil of reviewing--there is only so much time to review the games, which means replay value and depth get covered up by graphics, initial reaction, and sometimes music.  And that is why I tend to look at player reviews...typically players play games longer before they put up the review.  It's still not perfect, as LaughingThesaurus indicated, but I can usually tell which ones are trolls by what they write in the review.

My 2.72 cents.

[x4000]

Speaking of local newspaper movie reviews, I remember that when Casino Royale came out -- which personally I think was brilliant in just about every way for that kind of movie, and the pinnacle of its genre -- the local reviewer felt very different.

He started out his review by saying, paraphrased "well, I hate very James Bond movie." And ended with "yeah, and this one is pretty terrible too." I'm not sure who that review was supposed to be useful to. Other people who already hate the series? I think they know to stay clear already.

The bigger problem was that this was a movie that he had no interest in, but that he couldn't avoid doing a review for if he wanted to stay relevant. He's supposed to be an authority on every movie, ever, right?

It's the same thing with game reviewers. Making them review tons of stuff they have no interest in leads to these 30-minute reviews that then pan a game. I'm not saying that only the deepest genre enthusiasts should do reviews either -- some people love every last James Bond movie, and around half of them are pretty terrible by most objective standards. But at least a general interest in the vague genre is a good idea.

[Wingflier]

Speaking of local newspaper movie reviews, I remember that when Casino Royale came out -- which personally I think was brilliant in just about every way for that kind of movie, and the pinnacle of its genre -- the local reviewer felt very different.

He started out his review by saying, paraphrased "well, I hate very James Bond movie." And ended with "yeah, and this one is pretty terrible too." I'm not sure who that review was supposed to be useful to. Other people who already hate the series? I think they know to stay clear already.

The bigger problem was that this was a movie that he had no interest in, but that he couldn't avoid doing a review for if he wanted to stay relevant. He's supposed to be an authority on every movie, ever, right?

It's the same thing with game reviewers. Making them review tons of stuff they have no interest in leads to these 30-minute reviews that then pan a game. I'm not saying that only the deepest genre enthusiasts should do reviews either -- some people love every last James Bond movie, and around half of them are pretty terrible by most objective standards. But at least a general interest in the vague genre is a good idea.

I definitely think you're on to something there Chris.

You have to rate a movie based on what it's TRYING to be, and the same can be said for video games.  You wouldn't downrate a comedy because it wasn't scary enough right?

I disagree with LaughingThesaraus that we can just rate things in a vacuum, because that's simply not how the human mind works. We operate completely on relativism, experience, and comparisons.

The new Star Wars movies (prequels) might have actually been decent Sci-Fi flicks on their own merits, but compared to the originals, they were garbage.  Peter Jackson's The Hobbit may be a decent epic fantasy movie, but compared to his LOTR Trilogy Masterpiece, it was barely stomachable (in my opinion).

You may see a beautiful woman alone in a room, and admire her beauty. Then another woman comes in who is so much more beautiful than her, that it makes the first woman look ugly in comparison.

Beauty is about expectations and relativity, nothing can or SHOULD be rated in a vacuum.  Having said that, your expectations should be realistic. If that reviewer doesn't like cheesy James Bond action movies, then I don't know why he would even choose to rate it? If a game reviewer doesn't like RTS games, then why is he rating AI War? You may laugh but these things happen all the time.

Personally my favorite genre of movie is horror. Not grotesque, bloody, pointless gore (which I think should be made into its own genre), but the kind of horror movie that fills you with suspense and mystery. The best horror movies don't even have a single cheap scare in them, but rely on your imagination to do all the work for you. I recognize that I'm heavily biased in this way. I have enjoyed horror movies that received terrible reviews, simply because I have a good imagination and I'm very partial to the genre.

On the other hand, I hate comedies. Movies like The Hangover and American Pie are so extremely non-funny to me that I would rather spend my time listening to a symphony orchestra composed of screeching violins. So obviously, if I were a reviewer, I wouldn't rate those types of movies, simply because well, I'm pretty cynical of all of them. I think the last comedy movie I saw that actually made me laugh, hard, was Mrs. Doubtfire; and that was made in the mid 90s. They just don't make comedy movies like that anymore. Now it's all about sex, partying, and stupidity.

Casino Royale certainly was a good movie, but if I had to choose one to epitomize the pinnacle of that genre of action movie, I think I would have chosen Mission Impossible 3 instead. Ironically, the 4th one that just came out recently was pretty disappointing to me. This in spite of the fact that it received glowing reviews.

[cupogoodness]

So this was way back now in this thread, but I'm actually from the Pacific Northwest originally (though my blood has thinned in the balmy LA sun these past six years). Many believe I glow in the dark, if you'd like to take a stab at where I'm more regionally located.

Thanks for all the feedback about the game so far. It's all being considered for the marketing effort, and once we have some tighter copy to share, we'll post it to get feedback and make any edits needed. As always, feel free to post any feedback for marketing here on the forums (Anywhere's just fine, but here's a specifically good spot: http://www.arcengames.com/forums/index.php/topic,8346.0.html ), or message me directly.

[Misery]

I think the problem, as Chris or Keith has alluded to in the past, is that reviewers spend very little time playing the games they review.  For the first 2 hours, D3 seems great, AVWW2 seems OK, and you're still trying to figure out the units do in AI War.  40 hours later, things start to shift.  AVWW2 starts showing it's replay value, D3 starts to feel grindy, and you're still trying to figure out how to keep the AI from ROFLstomping you in AI War (technically, that never changes; it just gets more fun as time goes on  ).  I think that's part of the necessary evil of reviewing--there is only so much time to review the games, which means replay value and depth get covered up by graphics, initial reaction, and sometimes music.  And that is why I tend to look at player reviews...typically players play games longer before they put up the review.  It's still not perfect, as LaughingThesaurus indicated, but I can usually tell which ones are trolls by what they write in the review.

Aye, this.   I dont like professional reviewers much for these exact reasons.   That was one thing I was wondering about with AVWW2, was.... what are the reviewers going to think about it?   The game really does have a slow-ish start to it... your early turns arent going to involve many survivors, you wont have many tiles to work with, you wont have as much resource management and building and positioning to do, and heck, for the earliest turns, Demonaica isnt even OUT yet.   When the game gets to the later turns though.... things get loopy, and INTERESTING.   Suddenly I've got like 18 survivors, which often still seems like NOT ENOUGH to handle everything that's going on, Demonaica is running around stomping things while occaisionally farting out a pile of evil space bats or throwing freaking snowstorms at me, while his castle constantly opens up to reveal horrible crocodile hordes or other things, and he's got warp points he can use, and I've got all these buildings to manage, I've got to make MORE buildings, I have to decide where and when to make those buildings, I have to find some way around all of those horrible Deep Gates, and my decisions on where to purify next get more and more difficult.   And that's just the start!   It's a perfect example of a game that REALLY doesnt go along well with the "play for 2 hours and then write a full review" idea.  I think the only way to REALLY review a game like that.... or most of Arcen's current stuff.... is to play entirely through it MULTIPLE TIMES, and THEN do it.

Buuuuuuut, that's not how it works, is it....

I forgot where I was going with that.



On the note of being compared to other games/genres.... I really dont think that references to Oregon Trail are at all a bad idea.  I do indeed think that getting the "what is this game reminiscent of, even if only in terms of concepts" part out of the way quickly can be very important when it comes to grabbing attention.   FTL is a good example of that.  I bought the game, and loved it, but THE thing that drew me to it's pages in the first place was that it was "like a Roguelike".   That caught my attention, and then I went to the page, and saw what it REALLY is (granted, it actually IS alot like a Roguelike), and bought from there.  But if it hadnt had that little "roguelike" blurb (wherever I heard about it), I probably wouldnt have had a look at it at all.   Catching the customer's eye is important.   The deeper descriptions of the game can come AFTER that, as can differentiating it from that reference.


.....and I forgot what else I was going to say.   Gee, I'm on a roll here.

[keith.lamothe]

On the reviews thing I think there's a way of approaching them, that many people already use, that I think actually works:

1) Read a bunch of reviewers, pick out the ones who appear to at least be competent and actually play the games they review.
2) Read a bunch of their back stuff and follow them for a while, and pick out the ones whose tastes best match yours (and, if possible, match your reasons for those tastes).
3) Then, actually consider their opinion on future games as having a bearing on whether you would like those games.

And in many ways there's already a separate category of journalistic activity ("review" might be too strong a word) for spotting the games that are objectively-bad due to critical bugs or crippling DRM or whatever.  That's already useful for me, but once it gets into subjective evaluation I need to have at least some common ground with the reviewer's interests (and the reviewer needs to actually put effort into the reviews) for it to be worth my time reading the review.

[Professor Paul1290]

It's worth mentioning that not all customer groups are created equal and some customers have a greater attention spans than others. Some developers don't have to care as much about marketing as others do because of the customers they cater to.

Yep, as long as for budgeting you are OK with the lesser sales. That is where things a finicky. Nothing wrong with making a game where one out of a million gamers would want to buy it...just don't expect a million gamers to buy it

That's definitely true, but more what I'm getting at is that it also matters who you are making games for and what they are like.

While it is true that more marketing can mean better sales, you also have to ask yourself what sort of person you are making your game for and what sort of marketing and how much would work for them.

For example, would the sort of person who would like Exodus of The Machine find the line "You have died of dysentery... and robots" very cheesy and over the top to the point of sounding unappealing? Maybe.

I guess at some point you also have to wonder whether you are making a game for people who would appreciate your work in the first place or if you should switch genre/audience, but of course that comes far earlier in the process than what we're talking about here.



Some indie devs don't have to worry much about marketing and sell just fine because they've chosen to dig themselves in and specialize in a certain game or type of game that they've found a very willing audience for, so they don't have to re-market themselves as much every time they make a new game because their intended audience already knows about them.

Of course, if Arcen Games did that they'd be working nothing but AI War and its sequels, successors, and spiritual successors forever, and I get the impression Chris's sanity would be mostly gone by the time Arcen got to its tenth birthday. 

[keith.lamothe]

Chris's sanity

That ship done sailed

Along with the rest of ours.

[Mánagarmr]

Metacritic is terrible. You can't just slap a score on a game and leave it at that. I despise scored reviews. If I want to know how good a game is, I'll READ a review or watch a gameplay video. Preferrably a couple of them. I can't judge wether a game is good or not from a simply 0-100 score. It's ridiculus.

Not to mention Metacritic is horrendously biased. They have a "weighing" list for different review sites, measuring how much their reviews will affect the metascore. It's just a cluster**** of terrible, and I wish it'd disappear. It's not helpful in any way to the business, it's 100% harmful. I can't see there being anything beneficial about it. Is there?

(mod edit: not that I don't agree, but we try to avoid that character sequence around here)

[keith.lamothe]

I think scored evaluations (not sure if I'd call them reviews) can be appropriate when considering just the questions of "does this game run reasonably smoothly?", etc.  You could think of it as a collection of numeric scores for: "bugginess", "DRM", "system requirements", etc.

But as far as trying to numerically score "is this game fun?" ... well, yea, that's gonna be tough.  It'd be tough even if the reviewer was brilliant and spent 20 hours reviewing every game.  Given the actual average level of competence and maybe half an hour that gets put in in many cases, it's just a disaster waiting to happen.

[chemical_art]

Score reviews from big names are suspicious.

I can't think of many other industries where critics are so dependent on their work from the very thing they examine.

[LaughingThesaurus]

Oh no, I know what Diablo 3 was trying to do and it did a terrible job of being that. That still doesn't mean it needs a grade of zero. Until I actually had to look for loot, I had fun with the game. By the time I got to act 2, my options were "go to the auction house or grind" and I gave up on the game right then. But, I was still able to actually have fun with the game. It was still a game.

[chemical_art]

But you see, if the main fun of a game is bashing monsters to get better loot, and you yourself acknowledge it is built in you have to grind ridiculous amounts of time or buy stuff to acquire said loot (not very fun)to bash those monsters, for a game that is a failing grade.

Games shouldn't ever be work.

[keith.lamothe]

Games shouldn't ever be work.

Oddly, there is a substantial gaming audience that seems to disagree, given the immense popularity of certain games/genres.

That said, I don't ever want to make a game that is work, in that sense.

[chemical_art]

One man's work is another's play?